Umar Muhammad v. State of Missouri, 579 S.W.3d 291

Umar Muhammad was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two armed criminal actions for a 2011 shooting; concurrent prison sentences were imposed.
After sentencing, Muhammad acknowledged receipt of Rule 29.15 rights (Form 40) and later retained private counsel (Attorney J.) for his direct appeal; counsel entered appearance after appointed counsel moved to withdraw.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Muhammad’s convictions and issued mandate on January 27, 2016; Muhammad filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion 174 days later (July 18, 2016), beyond the 90-day Rule 29.15(b) deadline.
Muhammad testified at the post-conviction hearing that Attorney J. told him he had 180 days to file and promised to assist in preparing and filing the motion; Attorney J. admitted he gave incorrect advice and agreed to help but did not timely file.
The motion court found Muhammad’s initial 29.15(b) motion untimely and that this untimeliness constituted a complete waiver of his post-conviction rights; the court also considered and rejected a third-party interference excuse based on Attorney J.’s conduct.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that reliance on privately retained counsel’s erroneous advice does not qualify as active third-party interference excusing a tardy initial 29.15(b) motion, and Muhammad’s late filing therefore waived his Rule 29.15 claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether untimely filing of initial Rule 29.15(b) motion was excused by third-party interference	Muhammad: Attorney J.’s incorrect advice and promise to assist prevented timely filing	State: Rule 29.15(b) deadline is mandatory; reliance on retained counsel does not excuse tardiness	Court held untimely filing not excused; waiver applies
Whether retained counsel’s erroneous advice amounted to active interference	Muhammad: Attorney J.’s misinformation actively interfered with filing	State: A client’s private counsel is agent; counsel’s errors are imputed to client	Court held retained counsel’s error not third-party interference
Whether trial court or Form 40 misadvised movant about deadlines (like Watson)	Muhammad: Form 40 or other misinformation created a ‘‘stumbling block’’	State: Muhammad signed Form 40 and was advised at sentencing; no trial-court misinformation present	Court held no court misadvice; Watson inapposite
Whether court should reach ineffective-assistance claims on merits despite untimeliness	Muhammad: claims of misidentification/self-defense could proceed	State: waiver bars consideration of merits	Court declined to reach merits because waiver dispositive

Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2014) (private-counsel error does not excuse untimely initial Rule 29.15(b) filing; discusses active-interference exception)
Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. banc 2017) (timely filing excused where trial court misinformed defendant during sentencing colloquy)
Fields v. State, 541 S.W.3d 45 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (explaining when active third-party interference may excuse late filing)
Propst v. State, 535 S.W.3d 733 (Mo. banc 2017) (active-interference exception requires movant to take steps to file and be thwarted)
Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. banc 1993) (initial 29.15 motion may be informal but must include every claim known to movant)
Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991) (complete absence of counsel is tantamount to failure to appoint counsel)
Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (movant bears burden to prove exception to timing rules)
Wadel v. State, 524 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (movant must allege and prove by preponderance that he falls within timing exception)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)